This brings us to one of the first claims of religion:
to know god, god must first reveal himself to man
and also to one of the claimed claims of God that he will reveal himself to all his creations: http://lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/27.30?lang=eng#29 "I rejected my Redeemer, and denied that which had been spoken of by our fathers; but now that they may foresee that he will come, and that he remembereth every creature of his creating, he will make himself manifest unto all."
- now when? That's his business, but it would be a low sort of creator that forgot his creations.
Anway, I just wanted to demonstrate where philosphy leads when it considers science and religion. Maybe Godel got there first.
Science and religion are useful independent, but the quest for truth makes a tool of them both; and I'm after truth, not a plausible debating position. If there is a god, and one worth knowing, I expect him to notice that and take an interest; I expect to find him. I find the journey very satisfying, very delightful, and very subject to rational scrutiny. One might wonder if god is more scientist than religious - after all superstition so often masquerades as religion.
But "they" don't leave it to the realm of fiction, they spend their lives furthering the cause of making it be true. They just arrogantly and with no evidence presume that it hasn't happened before.
And the vision sold to the public is that it will be true; mankind will achieve mastery of the universe.
Is this vision merely a facade religiously given to the public so that science can be widely supported; or is it the aim of science?
I admit to taking extremes in this post like "arrogantly and with no evidence presume" - the real position is that scientists who claim that there is no god need evidence for the claim, particularly when considering that their own ultimate success promises to make them god - perhaps their posterity will denounce them as mere spaghetti monsters; and such a thing would at least not surprise them.
You say that "religion only answers the question that it begs" because you disqualify as invalid the presumption that a vantage point exists from which the universe is said to have a purpose. You beggared the question by not sharing the viewpoint from which it is asked; but this is no more than a re-statement of your own position.
Those who have that viewpoint do not find this question beggared, but rather the start of science beggared - perhaps you are familiar with the question "but who made it go bang?"
The argument in providing the final answer between religion and science comes down to this: Science must leave un-answered the final question: why Religion must leave un-answered the final question: how
When you prefer science or religion you chose which question you prefer to leave unanswered.
The claim of blinkered scientists to be right against religionists is nothing more that a obscured statement of their personal preference, likewise for blinkered religionists.
If only you had used philosphy to analyse what you meant by "the real world" when you said "wondering about whether it's got any connections to the real world" however that is one of the questions covered by philosophy BUT NOT BY SCIENCE.
Science exclusively investigates only things which are subject to the scientific method and by definition cannot investigate anything else.
Some religions are comforting, and some seem to have common grounds. But to leave it at that and say that (some) religions consistently fail to accord with reality (whatever reality is) is really a fair admission that you have not found religion (rather than religions) worth studying, and this sadly reduces the force of your point in the same way that the freaking religionists lack of science makes their views on science so weak (and often laughable).
As a comparison, some are perhaps unable to distinguish between decent knowledge based health care, and homoeopathic quacks, snake-oil salesmen and so forth. Such people, might classify all 3rd party provided healthcare as bogus together. I think we both think that they would be wrong.
But the comparison holds to religions too. Because some are run by quacks, or have quacks in them, says nothing about the fundamental nature of reality or purpose, and for which religion provides sound answers to many seekers of truth and understanding (and I don't just mean timid fearful folk).
The ignorant finding decency in health care is like the human finding truth in religion and like the philosopher seeking the purple cow. It's all academic until he finds the cow, and only then can be make a statement on it.
I've managed to work out that you weren't talking about religion but popularist creationism.
On a different note I find it amusing the anti-religionist scientists (and I don't call you one) dream and hope of mans expansion across the galaxy, planetary engineering and so forth, but (and given the age of the universe) don't imagine that we are the result of someone's efforts in those same endeavour; i.e. maybe god did create (organise) the world.
However I think the 7 thousand years stuff is unjustifiable, even from the bible, I don't understand how religionists get the idea that the bible claims the earth is young.
I think you answered my flamebait the worst, so I'll continue the discussion from your post.
"Evolution is not some 'pet theory' but part the framework of humanist enlightenment that has proven itself again and again." is a baseless statement with the same sort of authority as my flaimbait; which is merely this: "that's how I like it".
I'm not a young earth creationist or even nearly one, but from a distance I can't see the difference between the position presented here and the one presented by "creationists".
Both groups sum up to "right thinking folk are against it" and it is an embarrassingly weak position to argue from.
The person who talked about the school boards was a bit better, but the school boards teach the things demanded by parents who call for accountability and less so the things demanded by other parents - which is to be expected.
I'm trying hard to read this as more than a complaint that "Oh noes, my pet-theory/favourite-subject isn't being taught as much as I think it should"
The general form of the story is well known.
In this case it is a scientific theory so scientists see it as bad for future science.
It could just as easily be engineers claiming about the poor quality of mathematics teaching, or CS professors complaining about the lack of independent thinking.
However, my view is that it is down to the parents to do the teaching, and to delegate to schools as they see fit, and also to make up the difference.
No-group has a right to have their pet subjects taught to children. Except the gubbernment, of course. But- they are allowed to whine and make a noise about it.
I think it's kind of cool that the animal has it's own immune system whose breakdown may only affect an animal-size piece of meat.
It's cool that my meat can be happy before I eat it.
Let things be alive, that's what I say - it's not all about efficiency from a human perspective.
If we stop farming animals because they don't like being eaten we might start aborting disable foetus's because we don't like them being alive. (Disabled people I know were glad to be born).
It's all on the same spectrum - it's fear of life.
Thanks for that pointer. One of the reviews was interesting:
'This is hardly a new phenomenon. Karl Popper devoted one volume of the "Open Society and its Enemies" to Plato, whose vision of an ideal society was one ruled by disinterested philosopher kings.'
That statement accurately describes the absentee-god that many people whine about; "If there was a god, why..."
although I'm not sure how disinterested Popper meant.
"I read TFA and I'm not seeing the problem. He can't duplicate this issue unless he maxes out his connection and then his latency goes to hell. No shit Sherlock, that's what happens when your pipe is full and the packets have to wait in the queue to be transmitted."
It doesn't have to be as bad as it is - the queue doesn't have to be so long. If you have a shorter queue, it will just back up in each sending application (they send slower) and everyone gets a fair turn at the queue. With big buffers the queue is already full and any packet that wants to go has an extra long wait - latency is too high and useless for real-time applications. Equal access - fairness - but high latency.
If you keep the queue small and still give equal access, you get the same throughput for all applications but lower latency, which is very nice for real time applications like conferencing.
Only... the coders get to chose how to code it (are you one?) and they learn as they do it, so next time is always better...
I guess they didn't want to wait 10 years while they coded without BKL and so did a quick release with BKL to get the benefits of SMP. They could have took the otehr road, but you would have complained then as well - or if you hadn't, someone else would have,
You're getting close, it's definitely to allow an intentional expression and it's going to be a bug for all people who use white space to express more than just the {}'ness.
I wonder why a language has to enforce something that could have been enforced by the editor for those that value it.
Strictness on this is what kept back so many perl coders and stopped python from ruling the world.
But... I don't mind... and python-ites prefer white space to world domination, so thats good too!
That doesn't mean that GPS is turned off (after all it's a receiver) and it doesn't mean it can't report your route up as soon as you turn it back on again.
Slashdot Mirror
I had a guy threaten to kill me multiple times while I was interviewing him for a job opening.
I don't think he meant it, but it's hard to ignore it when he keeps saying it.
(He wasn't expecting a practical coding test).
If you boycott something properly you have to talk about it 8 million times. It's no good boycotting quietly.
I can't relate your comment to the article or the insight score... but your comments are intriging... please explain
This brings us to one of the first claims of religion:
to know god, god must first reveal himself to man
and also to one of the claimed claims of God that he will reveal himself to all his creations: http://lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/27.30?lang=eng#29
"I rejected my Redeemer, and denied that which had been spoken of by our fathers; but now that they may foresee that he will come, and that he remembereth every creature of his creating, he will make himself manifest unto all."
- now when? That's his business, but it would be a low sort of creator that forgot his creations.
Anway, I just wanted to demonstrate where philosphy leads when it considers science and religion. Maybe Godel got there first.
Science and religion are useful independent, but the quest for truth makes a tool of them both; and I'm after truth, not a plausible debating position. If there is a god, and one worth knowing, I expect him to notice that and take an interest; I expect to find him. I find the journey very satisfying, very delightful, and very subject to rational scrutiny. One might wonder if god is more scientist than religious - after all superstition so often masquerades as religion.
But "they" don't leave it to the realm of fiction, they spend their lives furthering the cause of making it be true. They just arrogantly and with no evidence presume that it hasn't happened before.
And the vision sold to the public is that it will be true; mankind will achieve mastery of the universe.
Is this vision merely a facade religiously given to the public so that science can be widely supported; or is it the aim of science?
I admit to taking extremes in this post like "arrogantly and with no evidence presume" - the real position is that scientists who claim that there is no god need evidence for the claim, particularly when considering that their own ultimate success promises to make them god - perhaps their posterity will denounce them as mere spaghetti monsters; and such a thing would at least not surprise them.
You say that "religion only answers the question that it begs" because you disqualify as invalid the presumption that a vantage point exists from which the universe is said to have a purpose. You beggared the question by not sharing the viewpoint from which it is asked; but this is no more than a re-statement of your own position.
Those who have that viewpoint do not find this question beggared, but rather the start of science beggared - perhaps you are familiar with the question "but who made it go bang?"
The argument in providing the final answer between religion and science comes down to this:
Science must leave un-answered the final question: why
Religion must leave un-answered the final question: how
When you prefer science or religion you chose which question you prefer to leave unanswered.
The claim of blinkered scientists to be right against religionists is nothing more that a obscured statement of their personal preference, likewise for blinkered religionists.
If only you had used philosphy to analyse what you meant by "the real world" when you said "wondering about whether it's got any connections to the real world" however that is one of the questions covered by philosophy BUT NOT BY SCIENCE.
Science exclusively investigates only things which are subject to the scientific method and by definition cannot investigate anything else.
Some religions are comforting, and some seem to have common grounds. But to leave it at that and say that (some) religions consistently fail to accord with reality (whatever reality is) is really a fair admission that you have not found religion (rather than religions) worth studying, and this sadly reduces the force of your point in the same way that the freaking religionists lack of science makes their views on science so weak (and often laughable).
As a comparison, some are perhaps unable to distinguish between decent knowledge based health care, and homoeopathic quacks, snake-oil salesmen and so forth. Such people, might classify all 3rd party provided healthcare as bogus together. I think we both think that they would be wrong.
But the comparison holds to religions too. Because some are run by quacks, or have quacks in them, says nothing about the fundamental nature of reality or purpose, and for which religion provides sound answers to many seekers of truth and understanding (and I don't just mean timid fearful folk).
The ignorant finding decency in health care is like the human finding truth in religion and like the philosopher seeking the purple cow. It's all academic until he finds the cow, and only then can be make a statement on it.
I've managed to work out that you weren't talking about religion but popularist creationism.
On a different note I find it amusing the anti-religionist scientists (and I don't call you one) dream and hope of mans expansion across the galaxy, planetary engineering and so forth, but (and given the age of the universe) don't imagine that we are the result of someone's efforts in those same endeavour; i.e. maybe god did create (organise) the world.
However I think the 7 thousand years stuff is unjustifiable, even from the bible, I don't understand how religionists get the idea that the bible claims the earth is young.
Well done. You put it better than my flamebait a few posts above.
I think you missed that religion and science are branches of philosophy that try to answer different questions.
When you miss that point, whether you pretend that religion or science has all the answers, things get very unsatisfactory.
Religion can be analysed well by philosophy and so can science.
But they are both less hot at analysing echother.
I think you answered my flamebait the worst, so I'll continue the discussion from your post.
"Evolution is not some 'pet theory' but part the framework of humanist enlightenment that has proven itself again and again." is a baseless statement with the same sort of authority as my flaimbait; which is merely this: "that's how I like it".
I'm not a young earth creationist or even nearly one, but from a distance I can't see the difference between the position presented here and the one presented by "creationists".
Both groups sum up to "right thinking folk are against it" and it is an embarrassingly weak position to argue from.
The person who talked about the school boards was a bit better, but the school boards teach the things demanded by parents who call for accountability and less so the things demanded by other parents - which is to be expected.
I'm trying hard to read this as more than a complaint that "Oh noes, my pet-theory/favourite-subject isn't being taught as much as I think it should"
The general form of the story is well known.
In this case it is a scientific theory so scientists see it as bad for future science.
It could just as easily be engineers claiming about the poor quality of mathematics teaching, or CS professors complaining about the lack of independent thinking.
However, my view is that it is down to the parents to do the teaching, and to delegate to schools as they see fit, and also to make up the difference.
No-group has a right to have their pet subjects taught to children. Except the gubbernment, of course.
But- they are allowed to whine and make a noise about it.
Yes, I think it is selfish.
I think it's kind of cool that the animal has it's own immune system whose breakdown may only affect an animal-size piece of meat.
It's cool that my meat can be happy before I eat it.
Let things be alive, that's what I say - it's not all about efficiency from a human perspective.
If we stop farming animals because they don't like being eaten we might start aborting disable foetus's because we don't like them being alive. (Disabled people I know were glad to be born).
It's all on the same spectrum - it's fear of life.
The answer is to not eat those animals and reduce the market; not to go further along that road.
Well that's one level.
I don't mind not eating the one that re-produced; but it has to reproduce so that the ones I eat can be happy walking around first.
Thanks for that pointer.
One of the reviews was interesting:
'This is hardly a new phenomenon. Karl Popper devoted one volume of the "Open Society and its Enemies" to Plato, whose vision of an ideal society was one ruled by disinterested philosopher kings.'
That statement accurately describes the absentee-god that many people whine about; "If there was a god, why..."
although I'm not sure how disinterested Popper meant.
I hope the "scientist" was just trolling.
But my point was to check the "green people" whose morals often seem un-bounded
Typical human selfishness trying to hog all the life on the planet.
Surely it is more generous to let your protein have a chance at sentience before you eat it - and we must eat it to survive.
I find it very nice that my protein (that I must eat) can walk around, be happy, find it's own food - even reproduce - before it is eaten.
Condemning so much of the protein we consume to a life in a tank could perhaps be the most selfish thing we have deliberately done as a species.
QOS just decides which packets will be let out of the big buffer first.
"I read TFA and I'm not seeing the problem. He can't duplicate this issue unless he maxes out his connection and then his latency goes to hell. No shit Sherlock, that's what happens when your pipe is full and the packets have to wait in the queue to be transmitted."
It doesn't have to be as bad as it is - the queue doesn't have to be so long. If you have a shorter queue, it will just back up in each sending application (they send slower) and everyone gets a fair turn at the queue. With big buffers the queue is already full and any packet that wants to go has an extra long wait - latency is too high and useless for real-time applications. Equal access - fairness - but high latency.
If you keep the queue small and still give equal access, you get the same throughput for all applications but lower latency, which is very nice for real time applications like conferencing.
What you want is for someone to code it just how you want, first time and no-rewrites. Only this post said it better: http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1937200&cid=34772938
Only... the coders get to chose how to code it (are you one?) and they learn as they do it, so next time is always better...
I guess they didn't want to wait 10 years while they coded without BKL and so did a quick release with BKL to get the benefits of SMP. They could have took the otehr road, but you would have complained then as well - or if you hadn't, someone else would have,
We need "+impressive" mod points
To burglarize a house is to turn the house into a burglar - I don't think that's what the FBI did, whatever they said they did.
I'm willing to believe the house was burgled - that seems more usual nefarious behaviour --- yes - a word with all the vowels in
You're getting close, it's definitely to allow an intentional expression and it's going to be a bug for all people who use white space to express more than just the {}'ness.
I wonder why a language has to enforce something that could have been enforced by the editor for those that value it.
Strictness on this is what kept back so many perl coders and stopped python from ruling the world.
But... I don't mind... and python-ites prefer white space to world domination, so thats good too!
That doesn't mean that GPS is turned off (after all it's a receiver) and it doesn't mean it can't report your route up as soon as you turn it back on again.